| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Voluntary dhimmitude in Minnesota. "The Art of Compromise," from the Pioneer Press, with thanks to all who sent this in:
As violent protests over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad continue around the world, a St. Paul charter school is quietly negotiating the delicate question of how to teach art to Muslims.Any depiction of God and his prophets is considered offensive under Islam, and disrespectful representations are even worse, as the recent worldwide outrage over the Danish cartoons has shown. But some Muslims also refrain from producing images of ordinary human beings and animals, citing Islamic teaching.
That presented a challenge for Higher Ground Academy, a K-12 school just west of Central High School on Marshall Avenue that has about 450 students. About 70 percent of them are Muslim immigrants from eastern Africa.
Executive Director Bill Wilson said he had concerns for some time about how to reconcile the school's art curriculum with the views of Muslim families, but the departure of the art teacher at the end of last school year gave him a window to act.
This fall, he hired ArtStart, a St. Paul-based nonprofit organization, to offer more options for about 150 kindergartners through second-graders, including visual arts and drumming. But parents were still upset that their children were drawing figures, Wilson said, and some pulled their children out of art class altogether.
Wilson then sat down with teacher and parent liaison Abdirahman Sheikh Omar Ahmad, who also is the imam at an Islamic center in Minneapolis, to work with ArtStart in determining how to meet state standards without running afoul of Muslim doctrine.
"We said, 'Look, we can do better than this,' " Wilson said.
NO HUMAN IMAGES
Out the window right away went masks, puppets and that classic of elementary school art class, the self-portrait, said Sara Langworthy, an artist with ArtStart. Revamping the curriculum "definitely requires stepping outside of the normal instincts that you fall back on," she said.
In their place came nature scenes and geometric forms and patterns, said Carol Sirrine, ArtStart's executive director. This week, the class was cutting out shapes to make into cardboard pouches. Another project involved taking photographs and mapping the neighborhood around the school.
The conversation about what is appropriate is still open.
In a meeting this week, Langworthy asked Ahmad whether the students can do silhouettes of hands. That's fine, he said.Ahmad's involvement has put many parents' minds at ease, said Said Jama, father of kindergartner Suhyr Ali Jama. Wilson said Muslim enrollment in art has rebounded since the changes were introduced.
Langworthy said she and fellow teacher Katie Tuma don't police what the students draw, but they do have conversations with students who are drawing figures to make sure it's really OK.
Not that the children are always the most reliable sources.
Langworthy said early on a few told her it was all right to draw animals as long as they didn't give them noses.
Second-grader Hawi Muhammed said her parents don't mind if she draws people once in a while, but "God … doesn't like people to draw a lot," she said.
No, Allah doesn't seem to like art very much.
Posted by Robert at February 22, 2006 1:03 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Someone call Garrison Keillor, please.
Prairie Home Sharia
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 22, 2006 1:24 PM
"Langworthy said early on a few told her it was all right to draw animals as long as they didn't give them noses"
This seems to be a common perception among Muslims. Everywhere the Islamic hordes conquered, they would knock to noses off statues. That's why so many ancient Buddhas and other religious images are noseless.
The same happened to the head of Hera in the Heraeum at Olympia whose nose was knocked off. The beautiful Venus de Milo (the Aphrodite of Melos) only escaped a similar desecration by being hidden away from the muslim invaders.
Posted by: Provoslavni at February 22, 2006 1:38 PM
I am speechless. Art without the human form? Even for young children? Michaelangelo, Raphael, Rembrandt, Modigliani, Rubens, Gaugin, Winged Victory, El Greco, Leonardo ... I could go on of course for much longer; what would our culture be without them?
What perversity! What provincialism! Naturally the art "professionals" and school authorities pretending all is hunky dory.
Posted by: Dixieinfidel at February 22, 2006 1:55 PM
Are the non-Muslim children int he art classes also being given the impression that there is something "wrong" with figurative art?
If so then the non-Muslim parents should sue the school district.
Posted by: Suzan at February 22, 2006 2:19 PM
I wonder if music, singing, drama are also on the no no list. No wonder islam makes little or no contributions to the arts.
Posted by: moderationist at February 22, 2006 2:21 PM
"Langworthy said early on a few told her it was all right to draw animals as long as they didn't give them noses."
What's wrong with a nose?
Is there some sort of Islamic worldwide competition to see who can get an idiotic Infidel to agree to the most absurd request whilst accepting a position of grovelling dhimmitude?
The above has got to be a front runner by a, ummmmm, nose.
Posted by: Celsius at February 22, 2006 2:22 PM
I contacted the school...they are a public school funded with tax payer dollars. Will someone in Minnesota please write to your congressman/woman and ask why your tax dollars are being used to establish Islam?
Posted by: Abby at February 22, 2006 2:23 PM
Parents can bring up their children in their own traditions. But this extends to all traditions, so long as the law of the land is not violated.
Make art an elective in this school. Non-Moslem children can have access to the full curriculum. Moslem children can access a restricted curriculum. There must be no hindrance placed upon any child whose parents approve their participation in the full art curriculum,
Posted by: Chatillon at February 22, 2006 2:24 PM
Celsius,
Did you not realize that many sculptural works of art in areas of the ancient world that were later invaded by Moslems were relieved of their noses?
Posted by: Lisa at February 22, 2006 2:27 PM
St. Paul.
Shouldn't the city of my birth change it's name, too?
As Robert has mentioned, there is no unifying voice in Islam.
So, isn't this a golden opportunity to challenge all of the peripheral interpretations of the "Islamic prohibition on drawings"?
And wouldn't it be a golden opportunity to show just how chaotic Islam is, not just for non-Muslims to comprehend, but for Muslims themselves?
And if a rock solid definition of what images Islam does/does not prohibit, to what level do American public schools need to stoop to appease the Muslim mob?
Posted by: PRCS at February 22, 2006 2:39 PM
Yeah,that's great,so what is the school mascot now,a road cone?
2-4-6-8,PRAISE BE THE CONE!!!
JLP
Posted by: John Lee Pedimore at February 22, 2006 2:40 PM
Have the muslims in this school system also requested separate classes for boys and girls?
Posted by: freewoman at February 22, 2006 2:46 PM
The problem is it is a state funded school and as such must follow state education standards which includes art...and very specifc types of art. So what is next...Muslims are going to say that the state standards (based on federal standards) discriminate against their ability to get a free appropriate public education? Food in the cafeteria prevents them from getting equal education?
I think this needs to be addressed right now all the way to the Supreme Court. There is no way our public schools and institutions should have to accommodate Islam...change to Islamic code so Muslims can be comfortable getting their education in our public schools.
Posted by: Abby at February 22, 2006 2:47 PM
It makes you wonder if any of the staff have tats. Body art would also have to be banned. If you can't draw the human fiqure how can you draw on it?
Posted by: Ronin at February 22, 2006 2:50 PM
"But some Muslims also refrain from producing images of ordinary human beings and animals, citing Islamic teaching."
Okay. All right - so artistic renderings are wrong but, technologically filmed images of, let's say, beheadings as entertainment are right?
Oh this is all so much lying ... there are artistic (albeit lousy) expressions all over Islam .. just think of all the cow eyed, lipsticked dreamy portraits of the suicide bombers they all love to collect! Recall the Mohammaden artiste who so recently painted the insultingly nude portrait of the Indian deity Gaya (significantly, no deaths occurred over that deliberately rude painting).
Wake up Dhimmisota!!!
Posted by: Daisytoo at February 22, 2006 2:53 PM
To counter any bogus "freedom of religion" or "suppression of religious belief" arguments, all the school administrator had to do was to ask the the local chapter of CAIR, "show me in the koran where artistic depiction of the human form is absolutely prohibited." Doesn't exist, dismissed, next case.
Posted by: Lisa at February 22, 2006 2:53 PM
Really...hmmmm...so where do Muslims get the don't draw people thing? In some other Muslim book?
Posted by: Abby at February 22, 2006 3:06 PM
The prohibition against drawing figurative art exists in the Sunnah (collections of hadiths). There are several famous hadiths dealing with it.
Posted by: Suzan at February 22, 2006 3:19 PM
Langworthy said early on a few told her it was all right to draw animals as long as they didn't give them noses.
Q: How would they smell, then?
A: Terrible.
Cut out the nose, and spite the face.
at February 22, 2006 3:23 PM
There is no unifying voice in Islam.
While some Muslims believe that any depiction of animate objects is a sin, this belief does not originate from the Qur’an, but rather from the hadiths.
* Here is one article, from among many, which clearly refutes claims that such depictions are prohibited.
“Drawings from an Islamic Perspective”
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503546054
"One may draw pictures of people, animals, etc. as long as they don’t depict anything against Islamic guidelines. It is important to understand that Muslims don't replicate 'images' because they believe that on the Day of Judgment, they will be asked to put a soul in the 'images' they made, challenging Allah’s creation. Also, they don't replicate 'images' believing that the Angels will not enter their houses. This is based on several authentic Hadiths of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.
However, in the Arabic Language, what we call Sourah or commonly translated as 'image' can mean several things, and in the context of the prohibition, it means a statute or a sculpture of a living being that has shade (depth or three dimensional) and not a photographic picture.”
*And here is an article that addresses the interpretational disparities within Islam itself concerning such drawings.
“Islamic Scholars' Views on Portraying Mohammed Not Identical”
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200602%5CCUL20060207a.html
“As protests erupt in the Muslim world over cartoon depictions of Mohammed, various media reports stress that Islam forbids any pictures of its founding prophet. However, it's an issue over which -- like so many others in the religion -- scholars appear to differ.
The same Islamic (shari'a ) law said to outlaw pictures of Mohammed also forbids pictures of any person or even animal -- and there, too, scholars' interpretations vary.”
The second article is much more informative than the first, and is worth your time to read. The imam, Abdirahman Sheikh Omar Ahmad, is like so many other Muslims, providing his point of view and understanding of the issue.
Shouldn’t the school be provided with all of the facts?
at February 22, 2006 3:26 PM
Are biology textbooks okay?
Posted by: AnneCrockett at February 22, 2006 3:34 PM
Go here to see the pretty dismal state report card for Higher Ground. Looks more like Lower Ground to me!
Posted by: Daisytoo at February 22, 2006 3:37 PM
PRCS,
that is exactly the point, if it ain't in the koran, it ain't absolute religious law. Compare the koran:
and Allah revealed through his messenger whoever weareth plaid pants with striped shirts, their's is an awful doom
to the Hadith
(Narrated Aisha) Hey Abu, you look really silly in that outfit *giggle*.Posted by: Lisa
at February 22, 2006 3:39 PM
I live in Minnesota and can honestly say it is a beautiful place to live; lakes galore, thriving night life, awesome scenery, high living standard, etc. Unfortunately we are also a 'blue' state, and that means a large population segment that is more worried about being 'sensitive' than smart.
If you lived here, you would know that the actions taken by this school are simply a continuing progression of the multiculturalism-at-any-expense attitude that pervades the state.
More and more of our schools now have muslim prayer rooms for students to utilize at any time, even during class. No excuse necessary, other than your 'need' for some time to contemplate or pray.
Of course those schools also have special rooms for gay, lesbian and transgender kids, though it is notable that no such rooms exist for Christian or Jewish students.
Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at February 22, 2006 3:41 PM
so where do Muslims get the don't draw people thing?
Goodness' alone knows. And it seems to be a far from universal attitude in practice. I'd be interested to hear comment on this from someone deeply knowledgeable in Islamic culture. Most obviously it seems to be related to the Mosaic ban on graven images:
Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
This is a potential problem for any religion that recognizes the ten commandments, as Paul Johnson notes in his recent history of art.
Besides that, my understanding is that God is seen by Muslims as being totally outside nature, whereas the Christian God is believed to be immanent as well as transcendant and to have entered His creation at the incarnation. I wonder if that has something to do with differences in attitude. There is perhaps a connection there - of emotion if not logic. The incarnation might almost be felt as sanctifying human flesh as such. Appropriately enough, the prototypical representation of the human figure in Western art (if we except the classical world) might perhaps be the madonna and child.
Posted by: Yojimbo at February 22, 2006 3:46 PM
Since the prohibition against drawing human or animal forms is only in the Sunna and not in the Quran, Shia and Sunni have very different views. Shia will often have religious Icons or posters of Ali, the 12 Imams, and even of Muhammed himself, while the Sunni consider these to be idolatrous.
Shia Quran's are sometimes even illustrated. I've seen many Shia women wearing medallions with the face of Mo on one side and the face of Ali on the other. These look very much like Catholic saint medalions or Buddhist amulets. However, wearing one can get you executed in Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps the difference in the Islamic view of art is based on their understanding (or misunderstanding) of human nature. Christians and Jews believe the human person is created in the image and likeness of God and thus we share in his creative nature. While idolatry is forbidden, it is defined as the wrongful worship of something other than God. For Jews and Christians, the creation of beauty and the human form are celebrated.
Islam, see humans as simply being created to serve the capricious whims of Allah and thus any creative impulse is seen as "shirk" that is they see as idolatry any human action that is creative as infringing on the rights of Allah. To a Muslim, idolatry has little to do with wrong worship but rather with the limitations imposed by submission.
Posted by: Provoslavni at February 22, 2006 3:49 PM
This is one more step toward the type of Muslim enclaves that exist in Europe. Little by little, Islamic law, or some interpretation of it, is introduced. Each time, some naive non-Muslim individual (useful idiot) in a position of power permits what they see to be a small concession. They think they are being "sensitive" and accommodating. But this is civilizational suicide by a thousand increments. Muslims are not sensitive or accommodating toward western culture. They consider the west, and its people, dirty and disgusting and in need of being changed. This is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between 21st-century western civilization and 7th-century Islamic Arab-Bedouin tribal imperialism.
Posted by: Archimedes at February 22, 2006 3:52 PM
Whoops! Thanks for the links PRCS. I like the guy that says smileys are banned. :-)
Posted by: Yojimbo at February 22, 2006 3:55 PM
They consider the west, and its people, dirty and disgusting and in need of being changed.
Certainly, some appear to think just that, and are not shy of saying so - at least away from the Western media. Even while CAIR's representative is assuring Americans that he would see free speech abridges on behalf of all religions - how generous! - other Muslim leaders are talking of a duty to hate Christians.
Here is a MEMRI transcript of a Saudi - a Professor of Islamic Law, no less - saying just that.
Posted by: Yojimbo at February 22, 2006 4:06 PM
Yojimbo
Indeed Deuteronomy 5:8 says exactly that no graven image shall be made. However it is important to note the puctuation, this sentence is continued into Deuteronomy 5:9
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them
The prohibition of graven images is clearly defined as idolotrous images, i.e., those that are to be worshipped instead of God. There is not any prohibition against any image that is not an idol. Furthermore, graven refers to sculpture, not pictures. Nativity scenes, Michelangelo's Pieta, and church statuary are all "graven" images, but these images are not worshipped in lieu of God, and are still in accordance with Mosaic law. So worshipping Golden Calves is out, drawings of God, Adam, Noah and Moses in the Sistine Chapel is A-OK in God's playbook.
Posted by: Lisa at February 22, 2006 4:42 PM
Lisa,
I knew the plaid pants/stripped shirt prohibition was serious, but I had no idea just how serious it is.
Yo,
Smiley faces. I'd like to tell you that I'm flabbergasted, but of course, I'm not.
Posted by: PRCS at February 22, 2006 4:51 PM
"That presented a challenge for Higher Ground Academy, a K-12 school just west of Central High School on Marshall Avenue that has about 450 students. About 70 percent of them are Muslim immigrants from eastern Africa"
look folks - you are either FOR a highly centralised , state controlled education system - like that in France.
or you prefer a more federal, state based system, where theres a bit of leeway at the local level. I gather that the American system is more like that.
And in a country as vast and diverse as America, you just *have* to try to change a few things - stuff that isnt CORE to the curriculum. Like art for example.
i cant fault their decision. they are treating 70 per cent of their pupils , who profess a religion, with a certain degree of respect.
if the school was in 70 per cent strict Catholic - which usually frowns on nude imagery, i would expect the Art class to adjust to the Catholic morals of their pupils.
Art is loaded with social mores and interpretations - and a lot of religions have a heritage and history in artistic forms that stem from those religions.
heck, if the pupils were 100 per cent Chinese, i'd expect the art class to be all calligraphy and chinese art. Europeans like Monet and Picasso might not have a relevance to those pupils.
it aint science or maths folks - its just an art class.
(so dont start throwing the creationist stuff at me)
In this case, i cant fault the school - if anything it shows them to be just realists rather than "dhimmis", to be quite honest.
at February 22, 2006 4:58 PM
"Wilson said Muslim enrollment in art has rebounded since the changes were introduced."
that bit is soooo important.
A Muslim kid who develops an interest in art through this - might actually really LIKE it , and go onto more secular art , against their parents wishes.
Art opens the mind. remember that folks.
what would you rather - a Muslim kid drawing geometric Islamic art or a muslim kid learning the Koran by heart in a Madrassa?
Posted by: archduke at February 22, 2006 5:11 PM
The problem is that standards are being adjusted to cater to a simple percentage; if there were only 51% of the students who were muslim, would this change of curricula still be warranted?
I have a problem when a taxpayer-funded school decides that it needs to change its basic functions so as to cater to an outspoken group, majority or not.
If schools feel the need to alter their classes, why not alter their dress codes; 70% of the muslim students are offended by the 30% girls not covering their hair...now what?
How about no pork at lunch, prayer breaks, female teachers instructing boys, the pledge of allegiance, displaying the flag, or reading Winnie the Pooh and Piglet? Are the 30% non-muslim students to be bulldozed by the majority, even though the larger population outside the school walls hold no such beliefs?
How about sitting down, shutting your mouth, being respectful of the teacher and concentrating on reading and writing? You want to be a zealot, do it on your own time, or open your own school.
Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at February 22, 2006 5:23 PM
"This is one more step toward the type of Muslim enclaves that exist in Europe. Little by little, Islamic law, or some interpretation of it, is introduced"
there has ALWAYS been enclaves in America.
land of the free and all that. Heck, just look at the Amish , for want of a big , well known, tourist example.
ever see the film "gangs of new york"? same argument. over 100 years ago - except it was directed against the Catholic Irish enclaves by the Protestant "natives".
The key thing is , is that in America you have a policy of the melting pot rather than the multi-cultural crap that you have in the EU.
From my time in America i was struck by how EVERYONE i met called themselves American first, and whatever-their-ethnic-background second.
In Europe, its the opposite. In Europe you really DO have enclaves. As a European myself, I think the Americans have got it right. We haven't. End of story.
If you want to point where the coming civil war against Islam will happen, it wont happen in America - it'll be Europe. And will we get a re-run of 1944 with the Yanks coming to our rescue yet again? Sure we will. As night follows day, it'll happen, yet again.
at February 22, 2006 5:24 PM
Dead Infidel Walking -> that sort of thing is happening in England
as for the above case - its just an art class. in some American town. i wouldnt get worked up about it. its not that big a deal. And its America. America has always morphed , adjusted.
i get more worked up about Cherie Blair taking up the case for a Muslim girl wanting to wear a hijab to a British school.
at February 22, 2006 5:28 PM
It's another case of pushing the limits. First, art images next the dreaded Christain cross. I seem to remember they have a human fiqure on some of them, hmmmmmmmm. I think a few hundred letters, emails and phone calls might make them reconsider. If I had a child in that school a lawsuit would already be in the works. It seems all those ninja head wraps offend me, they remind me of the slave days.
Posted by: Ronin at February 22, 2006 5:44 PM
archduke, I think I understand your chagrin over Cherie Blair taking up the case (despite, in my opinion, not for) the Muslim girl "wanting" to wear a hijab .. is it because Ms. Blair brought the full force of government into her personal interference?
I differ in my take on this school in Minnesota .. it's a charter school .. not actually a private or parochial school. The Highground School (which has a dismal scholastic record) is Federally funded - therefore we do have a public social stake in what's being produced and put into society by this school. And we'd better be concerned when the agenda appears Islamist.
Posted by: Daisytoo at February 22, 2006 5:52 PM
I SEE CROSS WORSHIPPERS!!!
Posted by: Lisa at February 22, 2006 5:52 PM
There exists an interesting account written by historian Muhammad al-Husayni Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi (died CE 1442), in a book called al-Mawa`iz wa al-i`tibar fi dhikr al-khitat wa al-athar (G. Wien, ed., 1913). In vol. 2, page 157 of the Wien edition, al-Maqrizi states that the face, specifically the nose and ears, were demolished in 1378 by a Sufi from the khanqah of Sa`id al-Su`ada named Sa'im al-dahr. The reason for the vandalism, according to al-Maqrizi, was to "remedy some religious errors:"...
From: The Sphinx's Nose http://www.catchpenny.org/nose.html
Posted by: Charles Bogle at February 22, 2006 5:59 PM
Charles when you visit the Sphinx on a tour your guide still blames the troops. The current story is they used cannons on it. They also claim the pyrimid was built with volunteers. My revenge was telling the guide in front of the group, I was always taught Aliens built it. He let out a long line of curse words, I did hear the word American several times. I liked Egypt :-)
Posted by: Ronin at February 22, 2006 6:07 PM
PRCS is quite right that this whole business of not representing humans or animals is a matter of interpretation. There is some basis for this in the Koran, though it is not decisive. There is certainly room for interpreting the Koran to imply a restriction on any representations that could promote idolatry. All that is needed is a Mohammad-inspired totalitarian dictator to force out such an interpretation for his own use. Such is the nature of ambiguous, ill-conceived texts.
The Old Testament forbids all representational art. People have a choice in our society to ignore these restrictions, and governments and school boards have no right to enforce a literal fundamentalist interpretation of these dictims. There is no acceptable reason why Muslims cannot abandon these restrictions, except of course there is the implicit threat that they'll be penalized and/or killed if they break these alleged restrictions. What this comes down to is that the school board has acquiesced to a rule that can only be enforced by (a) spurious appeals to authority, (b) appeals to/threat of force. This "respect" for "religious belief" is nothing more than kowtowing to totalitarianism.
An art program that does not permit freedom of expression is not an art program. It is state-run propaganda. In this case, the state is complying, ultimately, with Islamic Imperialists from Islamic countries, who in turn tell the Muslim clerics what to say, who then tell the parents what to believe, who then tell their children and the school board what they and even the non-Muslim children (!) can and cannot do. Those who agreed to this scheme probably thought that they were being "democratic" by giving the 70% Muslim families what they wanted. But these dhimmi school-board members do not understand the totalitarian nature of the ummah and the dictators who hold that herd in line with threats. That this is a totalitarian endeavour is further shown by the fact that non-Muslim children are required to comply with this Islamic amputation of the school art program.
All of Islam depends, for its continued existence, on threat or implied threat. Mohammad proclaimed: "I have been made victorious with terror." This is enforced by having followers, slaves of Allah, who are cult-indoctrinated to the point that they will throw away their lives to preserve Islam. Allah (Koran, 4:66-4:77): "Slay yourselves" in Allah's cause, which is to make Islam supreme by destroying all disbelief. Destroy the self so that the “religion,” the ummah, prevails. Nevermind that the "ummah," the herd, has no spirit and no mind. Islam means surrender/submission. The individual surrenders to the herd mentality and the tyrant. Remove the threat and Islam will die. Remove the threat, and no one, non-Muslim or Muslim, will any longer submit to it.
The sensitive Islamic supremacists who ban depictions of people would, of course, have no problem whatsoever if a Muslim school-boy depicted a Muslim fighter bombing the Israelis. I base this on an actual case in Canada--Muslim teacher comments "Praise God!" on the student's illustrated essay about killing Israelis. I also base this on the ubiquitous depictions of Jews and Christians as evil humans, evil semi-humans, evil apes, pigs, and rats, etc., in the same Islamic Imperialist countries that allegedly forbid images of people and animals. These are nations where the Islamic authorities control the media.
Depicting living things, especially animals and people, is a major aspect of artistic expression. In particular, the representation of people is important not just aesthetically but is crucial in art that addresses personal, social, and political issues. Think of the implications, first, of the fact that a child cannot do a self-portrait. Islam seeks to erase the self, to turn the person into an unthinking, unquestioning slave of the ummah, which in turn is slave to powerful authorities. You will not see these children do self-portraits. You will not see these children do pictures of themselves with their families. The person is simply a cog in the Muslim machine. The individual as the author of his or her own experience is slowly cut off, then erased. The ummah is more important than the family unit. Artistic control over one's identity is turned over to the Islamic totalitarian authorities.
If one cannot represent people, it is extremely difficult to address social issues through art. How does on represent human suffering without representing people? Addressing social issues, whether through art or through other modes, is bound to get a Muslim in trouble. But by cutting the individual's artisitic hand off so that even subtle criticism cannot be introduced--and such subtlety can be introduced through various artistic techniques--the restriction against representing the human form is a major Islamic totalitarian tool of control.
Likewise, how does one express, through art, ideas about politics and politicians without representing people? Caricatures and cartoons are out of the question (unless, of course, these depict the enemies of Islam in a dehumanizing, demonizing, or insulting manner--then the depictions are 100% approved, celebrated with glee!). Religious leaders are also forbidden from any negative portrayal if they are forbidden from portrayal.
Finally, think of the implications for creativity. "Art" under such restrictions is largely a matter of limited types of production of craft according to totalitarian rules. This kills not only the development of the individual, but also the society. Creativity and invention comes from individuals, not from a mindless "ummah". The only progress Islamic societies have ever made has been when they departed from Islam. These departures have been quickly stamped out by those who actually follow Mohammad's teachings and example. This simply shows that Islam itself is, inherently, anti-growth, anti-human, anti-development, anti-freedom, anti-just-about-everything that we call civilization. Islam has no goal except to perpetuate itself and destroy everything that gets in its way.
By removing this power of expression from the individual person, totalitarian-supremacist systems such as Islam keep the power of expression under the control of the ummah and a central authority, within their own domain. Add this control of artistic expressions to the control of verbal, textual, and other forms of expression, and the grip of the 7th century dictator Mohammad on all Muslims for all time is nearly complete. By controlling individual expression to such an extent, Islam is the most extreme and extensive totalitarian system ever conceived.
at February 22, 2006 6:27 PM
"This week, the class was cutting out shapes to make into cardboard pouches. Another project involved taking photographs and mapping the neighborhood around the school."
No wonder so many muslims are ENGINEERING majors! They can figure out how to design vests that explode and also understand the geography of the neighborhood that needs to go BA...BOOM!
Posted by: rumoret at February 22, 2006 6:32 PM
I read the larger article but still am missing a detail. What of the 30% non-Muslim students? What if their parents want them to have the experience of doing self-portraits and drawing the family pet and a picture of their grandfather in his fishing hat? Can the non-Muslims still draw figures? And, if they draw an excellent picture of their dog, Lassie, can that drawing be displayed in the hallway in time for parent-teacher conferences? This is stupid and disturbing beyond belief. But, it seems that the Muslims are used to winning. There was a reference to Muslim parents being disturbed about African-American students doing hip-hop dances and the school coming to an understanding about that issue. Attention women educators in St. Paul Public Schools: Get used to wrapping and wearing a hijab. It will be mandatory in sooner than you think. The People-of-No-Cartoons are winning one victory after another.
Posted by: maryrose at February 22, 2006 6:36 PM
Art class is out for the little darlings, but I understand that Head Chopping 101 is being introduced as an alternative class.
Posted by: Lepanto at February 22, 2006 6:52 PM
"if the school was in 70 per cent strict Catholic - which usually frowns on nude imagery, i would expect the Art class to adjust to the Catholic morals of their pupils."
Baloney! The Church has no such prohibition against nude fine art. Bad analogy, Archduke.
Posted by: Lepanto at February 22, 2006 7:02 PM
Archimedes: The sensitive Islamic supremacists who ban depictions of people would, of course, have no problem whatsoever if a Muslim school-boy depicted a Muslim fighter bombing the Israelis. I base this on an actual case in Canada--Muslim teacher comments "Praise God!" on the student's illustrated essay about killing Israelis. I also base this on the ubiquitous depictions of Jews and Christians as evil humans, evil semi-humans, evil apes, pigs, and rats, etc., in the same Islamic Imperialist countries that allegedly forbid images of people and animals. These are nations where the Islamic authorities control the media."
Oh boy. Why hasn't anyone noticed this hypocrisy? You're absolutely, 100%, dead on, right. So the non-Muslim parents of the St Paul charter school system need to call a school meeting to discuss the state of their art program and they need to come to the meeting armed with as many examples of these cartoons as they can muster, cartoons flooding out of the Muslim world (and printable off the internet) depicting Jews most often (from what I've seen), as rats and pigs and even quite often as human beings (Sharon is commonly depicted in human form) - and innocently inquire whether it would be permissable to permit the drawing of animals and human beings so long as such artistic instruction stays strictly within the apparently inoffensive and sanctioned Islamic limits of vilifying other religions.
Posted by: Caroline at February 22, 2006 7:02 PM
Archduke,
I'm not entirely sure how to interpret your posts. I initially thought you were being sarcastic. After other posts expressing the same sentiment, I do get the impression that you are serious. Normally what you say sounds pretty sensible to me, but here I have to disagree, strongly.
"i cant fault their decision. they are treating 70 per cent of their pupils , who profess a religion, with a certain degree of respect."
They, a school board in an American city, are conforming to a hard-line interpretation of a 7th century dictator's arbitrary rulings. That's what they are "respecting"--a belief of a tyrant, not people. If they respected the people, they wouldn't allow the encroachment of Mohammad's rules on their lives in America. Did they actually poll the Muslims to see if 70% really wanted this aspect of sharia? Actually, from the polls I've seen, less than half of Muslims living in the west want sharia.
The school board have actually changed their curriculum to conform to that 7th-century dictator's unjustified whims. (I believe Mohammad used the restrictions to quash dissent; I've addressed that partly in my above post). Islam is antithetical to the American constitution and the American way of life. Islamists actively seek to subvert this belief system and way of life at every opportunity. They chip away, pushing for every little concession they can get, here and there and everywhere. This is quite a significant concession. Indeed, the school board is actively cooperating with hard-line fundamentalist Islamists, asking them permission as to what is permitted and what is not. It is absurd.
"it aint science or maths folks - its just an art class..." "...as for the above case - its just an art class. in some American town. i wouldnt get worked up about it. its not that big a deal. And its America. America has always morphed , adjusted."
I think western artists would disagree with your assertion that art doesn't matter. Art is and always has been a major aspect of western civilization. Artistic expressions continue to play a significant role in society. And did you miss this whole Mohammad cartoon row, or what?! Would you make this assertion about art if it was your child, who was interested in art, or who might develop an interest in art? And should other parents simply dismiss this just because you don't happen to care about art?
Regarding science and math, I don't see any principle to your argument that would restrict the school-board from simply conforming to what the Islamists want done (or not done) in those areas as well. Art is different than science and math, but art too is a discipline. In that discipline, the artist has certain methods and subject matter available with which to make expressions. You're saying it's okay to restrict artists from a major (probably the most important, socially) subject matter: Representation of people. Removing this subject matter removes a whole domain of experience from art, and that is the human experience.
And should science also be restricted from studying people? And science contradicts the Koran. Should schools be allowed to report that sperm does not come from a man's lower backbone area, which contradicts (and therefore blasphemes) the Koran?
And what about scientific illustrations, anatomy drawings, etc.? Should we compromise the science of medicine because hard-line Islamists insist that all such depictions are blasphemous?
"A Muslim kid who develops an interest in art through this - might actually really LIKE it , and go onto more secular art , against their parents wishes."
Then why not go with a full art program in the first place, if that outcome is desirable? You’re not giving a reason why the hard-line Islamist restriction should be allowed. Instead, you’re arguing in favour of removing something that you seem to admit is good (free artistic expression). What you are saying sounds inconsistent; it doesn’t make sense.
The problem is that the "art" is being restricted to productions that carefully conform to Islamic law. One of the main purposes of a school art program in a western society is to develop the person’s individual expression, exploration, and creative thinking ability. It is precisely the child’s interest that art program attempts to encourage. The alternative is not the removal of the art program; the alternatives here are a full regular western art program in the western tradition (almost anything is allowed) versus a particular fundamentalist Islamist tradition (where almost everything is forbidden). We should not change due to pressures ultimately coming from Islamic dictators in foreign lands, nor should we excuse from blame those who are attempting to accommodate this flagrant Islamist power-grab.
"If you want to point where the coming civil war against Islam will happen, it wont happen in America"
I didn't say anything about a civil war (i.e., actual physical fighting) in America. What are you reading? I was referring to the fact that Islamic blasphemy law is regulating the art program in a St. Paul's school. This is simply one more increment in a series of Islamist power-grabs in communities where Muslims exist in significant numbers in the west. They are trying to set up their own communities under Islamic law and are demanding that the casual Muslims and the non-Muslims living in those areas conform to Islamic law. Evidently, if you were on the school board, you would have accommodated these hard-line Islamists, rationalizing your approval of this application of Islamic law by saying "Oh well, it's only art. I respect (7th-century dictator's) religion."
at February 22, 2006 8:12 PM
i fink art shood be an illekted subjek.
all we wer tort at scool was art an nufin much els.
12 outa 10 studens failed most uva subjekts.
at February 22, 2006 8:22 PM
I am a Art Major. The is no other subject besides History or Humanities that teaches the appreciation of other cultures.
The Muslim Iman in all his consideration for following his interpretion of Islam is denying children a vast world.
A world of imagination, ideals and appreciation of life images.
Art is an appreciation of history whether that is Islamic Architecture or Early Neolithic Human Drawings.
Too bad their ignorance is disallowing them the opportunity to give their children exposure to the history of humanity through the Arts.
Art is Humanity's History and the History of all Man kind is thru pictures of both living things and non living things.
The school system should be ashamed of themselves as well as the parents.
Posted by: bandy at February 22, 2006 8:27 PM
Next thing you know, they will be drowning the infidels in Lake Wobbegone. And saying allah made them do it...
ps-The real reason Muslims oppose the human form in art is that Muslims have been eliminating statues (which can be used as hard historical evidence)and other artistic human representation in the Middle East that prove allah is actually the moon God of Babylon (as did, for example, the mosque excavated at Hazor, Israel which has been dated at over 3000 years old and contained statues depicting allah and his three daughters all with the ancient Mesopotamian crescent moon symbol carved on their chests and is now seen atop mosque spires worldwide). Muslims' destruction of humanoid representation in statues and other artforms today carries over from this part of their history. Muslims actually didn't always do this.
Posted by: pythagoras at February 22, 2006 10:36 PM
They don't want Art class?
Let them take Hygiene instead.
The fewer skills that could be used to enable them to commit mayhem, later, the better.
Art could lead to drawing better IED designs, while the use of soap and proper methods of brushing the teeth, etc. would at least keep them benignly busy.
But the artwork of the other students should be prominently displayed in the classroom all year long.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 22, 2006 11:06 PM
http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1140609313/YAAFM_12_Muslims
-Cheers
Ayo Gorkhali
Posted by: Gorkhali at February 22, 2006 11:28 PM
as for the above case - its just an art class. in some American town. i wouldnt get worked up about it. its not that big a deal. And its America. America has always morphed , adjusted.
Perhaps, perhaps not, the current state of the world tends to push me towards the "not". There is so much concern, especially here in MN, that we should be doing the 'sensitive' thing without defining what that means. Sadly that all too often results in allowing a vocal minority to set the rules.
I could give you a myriad of examples of these incidents that have been occurring with increasing intensity and outrage; from the censoring of radio stations to the removal of flags to spurious cries of racism. They all indicate one thing, there are far too many people who are unwilling to see the forest for the trees.
One art class today, one entire school tomorrow. This seems such a mild thing to give in on, Ill grant that, but if it is so mild then why give in at all? It works both ways. "Both sides are saying, "its just an art course". But what if its more than that, parents complaining that the female teacher was wearing too short a skirt, or had too much makeup on (according to their interpretation)...now what do you do?
Like I said, how about the class runs the way every other class does? Today we are going to learn to draw horses, if that doesnt suit you then draw a house or a car or a cloud, whatever. But for those who want to test their ability to draw the creatures that are all around us, we are still going to teach it.
Be a religious zealot at home or open your own school. Dont like it, dont attend.
Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at February 22, 2006 11:30 PM
"This seems to be a common perception among Muslims. Everywhere the Islamic hordes conquered, they would knock to noses off statues. That's why so many ancient Buddhas and other religious images are noseless."
-Posted above
Interesting. Is there any evidence of this having been done to the Sphinx? Many African Americans have deduced that the Greeks must have done this to "conceal" the "African" features on it. Does anyone know of any other well known ancient Egyptian objects being defaced in a similar manner?
at February 22, 2006 11:35 PM
Death by a thousand cuts.
Art, theater, dance, music,literature,
they will take a little,we will give a lot
and soon there will be nothing more to give
and the cultural jihad will be done,
without a fight for freedoms hard won.
Then the children can learn history,
revised and reshaped,
facts raped and distorted
to make up a sordid story
of the glory of the so called prophet
and his moon god allah
and his hateful mission
to terrorize the infidel
into submission.
at February 22, 2006 11:37 PM
Arch,
The sensitive Islamic supremacists who ban depictions of people would, of course, have no problem whatsoever if a Muslim school-boy depicted a Muslim fighter bombing the Israelis. I base this on an actual case in Canada--Muslim teacher comments "Praise God!" on the student's illustrated essay about killing Israelis. I also base this on the ubiquitous depictions of Jews and Christians as evil humans, evil semi-humans, evil apes, pigs, and rats, etc., in the same Islamic Imperialist countries that allegedly forbid images of people and animals. These are nations where the Islamic authorities control the media.
Caroline beat me to it (and said it so much better than I could):
Oh boy. Why hasn't anyone noticed this hypocrisy? You're absolutely, 100%, dead on, right. So the non-Muslim parents of the St Paul charter school system need to call a school meeting to discuss the state of their art program and they need to come to the meeting armed with as many examples of these cartoons as they can muster, cartoons flooding out of the Muslim world (and printable off the internet) depicting Jews most often (from what I've seen), as rats and pigs and even quite often as human beings (Sharon is commonly depicted in human form) - and innocently inquire whether it would be permissable to permit the drawing of animals and human beings so long as such artistic instruction stays strictly within the apparently inoffensive and sanctioned Islamic limits of vilifying other religions.
The elephant in the living room is hiding in plain sight!
Posted by: PRCS at February 23, 2006 1:44 AM
What a bunch of Bunk. There are all kinds of muslim books which potray pics of Mohammad, the birth of Mohammad, Mohammad standing over the trench cutting off Jew heads, Mohammad on his mule talking down to Jesus.
Many of them can be seen posted here.
http://www.fomi.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1627&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=555
Posted by: Mullahmasher at February 23, 2006 1:46 AM
So what is next...Muslims are going to say that the state standards (based on federal standards) discriminate against their ability to get a free appropriate public education?
Posted by: Abby
No, what you and any group you can assemble need to do is protest and tell politicians that religion is a personal choice, and those personal choices cannot be forced onto others and interupt their freedoms. They can practice all the religion they want in their own home.
They've said this about Christians, so damn if Muslims should be allowed ANY wiggle room.
If it offends them, they can go back to the sandbox.
Posted by: Mullahmasher at February 23, 2006 1:53 AM
Mullahmasher-
Good link.
Here are more examples of the "non-existent" Islamic artwork showing Mohammed's face:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/
And, if the kids don't want an art class, how about a intensive course on the American Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 23, 2006 2:09 AM
No way should majority rule determine curriculum. But that is the way we have set up government schooling in the U.S. -- the school board majority decides what books will be in the school library, and many other aspects of curriculum. It doesn't really matter if the majority is secular or religious, whatever it is, it is wrong to determine cultural life by majority rule. We don't vote on what newspapers can print. We don't vote on what art galleries can show. We don't vote on what people can worship or not worship, or on what they can read. These things are all a matter of individual choice, as they should be.
And so should schooling be a matter of family choice. We should have a separation of school and state. For those families that cannot afford to pay for an independent school, let them have tax credits or vouchers or private scholarship funds to use at the school of the family's choice.
School boards should be abolished, majority rule in schooling should be abolished. The politicization of schooling in this country is undermining education and turning it into a typical mediocre statist product where children are taught the values of bureacratism, because it is illegal to teach any other values -- the law requires that government schools be "value-neutral", lest they violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Separate school and state. Let a thousand different types of schooling bloom, and let families freely choose the kind best suited to their individual needs. One size does not fit all.
One excellent source on the question of educational freedom: Stephen Arons' books.
Posted by: eduardo odraude at February 23, 2006 2:10 AM
The real reason Muslims oppose the human form in art is that Muslims have been eliminating statues (which can be used as hard historical evidence)and other artistic human representation in the Middle East that prove allah is actually the moon God of Babylon (as did, for example, the mosque excavated at Hazor, Israel which has been dated at over 3000 years old and contained statues depicting allah and his three daughters all with the ancient Mesopotamian crescent moon symbol carved on their chests and is now seen atop mosque spires worldwide). Muslims' destruction of humanoid representation in statues and other artforms today carries over from this part of their history. Muslims actually didn't always do this.
Posted by: pythagoras
That was no mosk. Islam has only been around for 1400 years.
However, Sin the moon god (or Hubal) and Al-Uzza, Manat, Al-lat are rock gods (daughters of allah) who's worship goes back ages before Muhammad came along. It was the practice of the pagan Arabs, probably brought to them by ancient Egyptians, Asyrians.
Don't DARE call it a mosk. Muslims will only site it as proof that their death cult is the origional religion.
The Rock worshipping Arabs were actually much more peaceful than muslims. They should be properly credited for the "Allah" rock which Muslims now worship.
Allah is a word contracted from Al-ilah which means "the god". "Al-ilah" was used in conjuction with "Al-ilah ta'ala" which means "the god most high", which, before and during Muhammads time was a common phraze used by the pagan Meccan Arabs. It was contracted to "allah" by these pagan Arabs and in use, so Mohammad first used "Ar-Rahman" as the name of his god until he slaughtered his own tribe, smashed the other idols and kept "Allah" as the name for his god, along with the Ka'aba which was a rock god temple.
Even today you will see the phraze "the god most high" (Al ilah ta'ala) used in some early Islamic stories.
Allah is a NAME not a word for "god", (ilah is arabic for god) even though it's been gradually accepted as such. It is a lie, and Ignorance of media helps entrench it further.
Posted by: Mullahmasher at February 23, 2006 2:18 AM
Where are the student-revolts in 2006? How come students in universities in western countries, especially the US, are not up in arms and demand the sacking of their misguided, tenured professors and school-principals, who not only cave in to Mohammedan demands, but actually bend over backwards to accommodate their preposterous, outrageous demands?
This cannot be only fear of Mohammedans, who attack anyone who speaks against their cult; it cannot be that PC alone has clouded everyones conscience to forsake the constitution and the ideals on which western democracy is based.
Apart from Arab students paying full fees for US university-education it is obvious that 'donations', if not outright bribes are behind the current climate in the MESA-nostra.
This situation has too far degenerated to be tolerated any longer. The lethargy in the general population, uncritical acceptance of 'tiny minority of extremists'- fairy-tales and deliberate misinformation including outright deception of the infidels must be exposed for what it is: Jihad!
This is not the 'inner struggle' Mohammedans would have us believe it means, but the struggle to shake the fundaments of our society to prepare the takeover by the RoP.
Deportations NOW!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 23, 2006 2:22 AM
And, if the kids don't want an art class, how about a intensive course on the American Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Posted by: profitsbeard
I'd rather kick them all out, ban their cult, and force them if they want to stay to convert.
I don't think there is any other way.
I'm sick to death of these animals. We wrongly call it a religion, and the sooner we correct that mistake the better, and the fewer the people will die.
Every politican should be held responsible for each and every death at the hands of followers of this cult until the day they smarten up and call it what it is and BAN it.
It's like letting in divisions of Hitlers SS troops and lettting them roam freely, teach our children, it's insane.
Posted by: Mullahmasher at February 23, 2006 2:27 AM
Posted by: eduardo odraude
I'm all for that. Public schools are useless. They've been ruined by PC ness, "special interests groups"(gay agenda) and now muslims.
The system should be entirely private so people can choose the school that best suits the way they want their children raised. (Barring anything sick and twisted like Islam of course)
Posted by: Mullahmasher at February 23, 2006 2:35 AM
Absolutely sickening.
Posted by: Jim at February 23, 2006 2:46 AM
Allah doesn't like art very much because Allah is Satan and anything remotely creative is absolutely, positively behond his powers and is forbidden in any of the zombies in his entourage (Cat has taken note and has left his talent at the triple strength holy-proofed-triple-titanium door).
Allah's fortes are lying, killing, hating, deceiving and humiliating (suck it up Osama for all eternity), more killing, deceiving and lying, in no particular order...followed by a huge mound of killing, hating and lying...followed by some blaspheming for desert.
Hahaha...what a total loser is Satan.
at February 23, 2006 4:25 AM
Dead Infidel Walking: "One art class today, one entire school tomorrow. This seems such a mild thing to give in on, Ill grant that, but if it is so mild then why give in at all? It works both ways. "Both sides are saying, "its just an art course". But what if its more than that, parents complaining that the female teacher was wearing too short a skirt, or had too much makeup on (according to their interpretation)...now what do you do?"
Precisely, and anyone who doubts that this is a serious slippery slope needs to read this report on the Islamicization of french schools:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18087
"The biggest social change entailed by this Islamization, Obin reports, is a deterioration in the position of females. Teenage girls are forbidden to play sports and are constantly watched by an informal religious police made up of young men, sometimes their own younger brothers. Makeup, skirts, and form-fitting dresses are forbidden; dark, loose trousers are the strongly recommended attire. To go to the blackboard in front of a class, some Muslim girls put on long coats. Often, they are forced to wear the headscarf, or hijab, and forbidden to frequent coed movie theaters, community centers, and gyms, or even to go out at all on weekends. Lots of young women were afraid to tell the Obin team what punishments are in store for them if they disobey. Not only female students but also female teachers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, are frequently subjected to sexist remarks by male teenagers.
In primary schools, the report cites instances of first grade boys' refusing to participate in coed activities and Muslim children's refusing to sing, dance, or draw a face. In one school, restrooms were segregated: some for Muslim students and some for "French." Some lunchrooms were segregated, by section or table. Some students required halal meat; at one school, the principal provided only halal meat for everyone.
With Muslim proselytizing on the rise, the report states that students are under pressure to observe Ramadan, the annual month during which Muslims fast during the day. In some high schools, it is simply impossible for Muslim kids not to join in, whether they like it or not. Obin cites one student who tried to commit suicide because of intimidation and threats from other kids over this issue. Obin also emphasizes that many conversions to Islam are taking place under duress.....
Finally, the report discusses a host of difficulties teachers encounter in dealing with specific subjects in the classroom. Most Muslim kids refuse to participate in sports or swimming, the girls out of modesty, the boys because they do not want to swim in "girls' water" or "non-Muslim water." When it comes to literature, French philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau are very often boycotted because of their supposed Islamophobia. Moličre, the father of French satiric comedy, is among the writers most often boycotted.
As for history, Muslim students object to its Judeo-Christian bias and blatant falsehood. They loudly protest the Crusades, and commonly deny the Holocaust. Under the circumstances, many teachers censor their own material, often skipping entire topics, like the history of Israel or of Christianity. The report cites one teacher who keeps a Koran on his desk for reference whenever a thorny issue arises. It cites Muslim students who refuse to use the plus sign in mathematics because it looks like a cross. Field trips, especially to churches, cathedrals, and monasteries, are boycotted.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, these pathologies are now present across France."
Posted by: Caroline at February 23, 2006 4:29 AM
"Muslim students who refuse to use the plus sign in mathematics because it looks like a cross".
The universe shows many, many signs of being eminently more sophisticted than your average Muslim's belief system.
They are about on par with rock worship...hmmm, somehow that rings a bell.
Nothing to worry about...Islam is completely toooo stupid to be taken seriously by the Cosmos...move along peope, nothing to see here.
What a total joke is Islam.
Posted by: Mike_W at February 23, 2006 5:11 AM
Great link Caroline. This paragraph supports the idea that accommodating Islamists (in the French schools) is just asking for trouble.
"In a particularly interesting observation, Obin notes that it is the schools that have reached accommodations with the extremists that are most plagued by violence against girls, Jews, and teachers. Schools that refuse to tolerate the intolerable have coped much better with the problems described in the report. As a result, Obin calls for a policy of no compromise with Islamist demands."
No accommodation to totalitarianism and hate.
Posted by: Archimedes at February 23, 2006 6:37 AM
"God … doesn't like people to draw a lot," she said.
How about Lot's wife?
OK. OK. My bad puns should be taken with a grain of salt.
OK. OK. I'll get serious:
Posted by: Shy Guy at February 23, 2006 7:48 AM
You know what's the most disconcerting aspect of this to me--How did Minnesota get such a concentration of East African (Somali, probably) Muslims in one neighborhood, to get a charter school for themselves, and to dictate the curriculum? What naivete led to inviting this mass influx of a foreign body that was never going to be grateful, and never going to integrate?
Sigh....
Posted by: longtime lurker at February 23, 2006 7:56 AM
lurker~ must be all those lettuce fields that need workers...
I want to know who is paying the plane fare for all those immigrants... oops, silly! it's us!
Posted by: Borg at February 23, 2006 9:09 AM
One thing that is becoming increasingly evident to me is that to defeat Jihad we must first defeat the Left/Liberal/Progressive/Socialists.
These useful idiots are not only preventing the West from recognizing and reacting to the Islamist threat, they are actually doing Islam's work by undermining our culture and trashing our history.
We may be in the same boat as the Left, but it's them that's drilling holes in the bottom of the boat. It may be time to throw the Left overboard. They must be defeated intellectually and at the ballot box. We must resist their lying cries of racism and any indtimidation they throw our way. It's the only way the West will be able to muster it's resources and fight Islam.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at February 23, 2006 10:50 AM
Most of the comments to this entry are thoughtful, but generally they address art and dhimmitude.
The sad irony over this compromise is that immigrants come to the U.S. because our advanced states of education, scientific expertize, productvity, and economic well-being. All of these were possible because we did not impose artifical barriers on thought and discovery.
Meanwhile, the countries under the rule of Islam steadily declined after their initial Golden Age because anything that contradicted the Qur'an or the Sunnah was considered blasphemous. Scratch medicine, physical sciences, and any form of art. This is the very backwardness the immigrants sought to escape. Now, they want to impose the Islamic restrictions on the U.S. Will the result be any different, in the long run?
Each time non-Muslims permit a small barrier to be errected as a means of accomodation -- whether it is over art, the label on an ice cream cone, or the use of the letters allah in internet names -- we are giving up the essential freedom of thought and expression that has made this country great and we are slipping into the yoke of backwardness that defines Islam.
Posted by: Chris at February 23, 2006 11:42 AM
70% of students Muslims from East Africa?!
That means Somalis-great, isnt it.
Why does the US need so many immigrants like these
and why is Min. our nation's dumping ground for
them? Don't we have enough poverty and crime in
our country already?
Unbelievable.
Posted by: george_rem at February 23, 2006 11:55 AM
Who, exactly, keeps giving green cards to people
like these? If you're, say, from the Chech Republic
or Poland or Romania, it is very very difficult
to obtain a green card. But if you're a Muslim
'refugee' from Somalia or Pakistan or India,
you and your twenty children get it immediately.
America is committing suicide. It is as simple
as that. And it is already too late to do anything
about it.
at February 23, 2006 12:08 PM
The Parents of this school should raise up.and knock-out this Parincipal,who ,probably have tasted some Arab benefits(bribe) . More over,this type of "Koran does not allow" tactis are played by lots of Muslims in Western schools, just to gain attention,and to probagate Islam to the young students.
If Koran does not allow any immages to be drawn,just go to any art center of a Muslim country-Where you can learn to draw Camel dung -(since even Camel is not alloed)!.But this an exaduarated lye- See for yourself how many drawings,paintings,and caricatures are exhibitted in other Islmic Art centers. I know there are hundreds of art schools in Muslim countries. This Principal of this school should be taught a lession,otherwise,this disease will spread to other schools too.If the Muslim students does not want to draw,let them just sit quite,or go to some islamic school,and do namaz.
I was told,Muslims should not use any stringed instruments in Music ,as it is prohibited in Islam. So Violin,guitar,piano,banjo,sitar,all are prohibited. Probably this school Principal does not know about this. Otherwise, he would have ordered a ban on School band.!!.
I fail to understand why Western school heads take so much interest in ONLY Mulsim students.:
Muslims,like wise DEMAND in Western country schools, the following,which are provided by many of our schools due to fear(or reward):
1. NO meat should be served in school canteens,which is not halal,and which is not checked by the muslim Imam
2.No female Muslims students should sit with non-Muslim male students for joint biology experiments
3.No one should object to Hijab or compleat covering of face in school by the female Muslim students.
4.No one should prevent the Muslim students ,when they want to go for prayer(namaz) during teaching time,and they must be taught those missed lessons afterwards by the teachers.
5.No Male and female swiming in the same time. When Muslim Girls swim,thee windows should be shut,and screened.
6. No Christian prayers,even if one percent of the students are Muslims.
Unless the Parents of these Majority Christian countries raise up and create a furore,these things will go on and on, and one fine day,our children will be brainwashed to follow Mohamed the great!
at February 23, 2006 12:32 PM
George_rem says:" Who,exactly ,keeps giving green cards to people like these?.If you are,say,from Chech Republic,or Poland,or Romania,it is very difficult to obtain Green card.But,if you are a Muslim 'refujee'from Somalia,or Pakistan.or India,you and your twenty chirldren get it immediately".
Gearge- you exactly hit the nail on the head ,brother!.
I too wonder -like you, why the hell these immigration departments of America as well as all the European countries ,including Canada, are bent upon taking these 'useless" and dangerous immigrants,that too as "refugees" from these dnagerous countries,which are so hostile to us?.They are not only lazy, but are trouble creators,traitors,and killers of your own innocent civilians.Unless the public raise up in protest,and set the matters right, these people will barge into our own personal rights ,which we were enjoying right from our forefather's time. We are at risk of loosing our culture,religion,and our own identity in the near future, unless we raise up unitedly and revoult now.
at February 23, 2006 1:16 PM
Re immigration. It may not be a coincidence that the same state, Minnesota, which has welcomed large numbers of Hmong refugees like the one who killed those six hunters also seeks to appease its burgeoning Muslim population. While the latter may be the worst, admitting massive numbers of migrants with totally different, and often hostile, cultural outlooks are a bad idea whether these be Hmong, Hmexicans or Hmuslims.
Posted by: RBLA at February 23, 2006 2:11 PM
Are these refugees able to get jobs or are they on welfare?? I would think if they aren't productive and useful, they wouldn't be allowed in? Why put foreigners on our welfare system? They could stay where they were and still get our money.
Posted by: freewoman at February 23, 2006 5:12 PM
I love the phrase "determining how to meet state standards without running afoul of Muslim doctrine." How about telling them to follow state standards are go the hell somewhere else?
Posted by: Don Miguel at February 23, 2006 5:29 PM
I would like to correct a few misconceptions I've seen in several posts about the supposed banning of art in the Tanach/Old Testament.
While it is true that the Ten Commandments prohibits the making of graven images in order to "bow down before them and worship them" Exodus (Shemot) Chap. 20 and Deuteronomy (Devarim) Chap. 5, the same Torah actually command the making of religious images to be used in worship a few chapters later.
There was a large font on the backs of carved bulls, there was large golden imbroideries of Angels in the Holy of Holies (Qodesh Ha-Qodashim) and the central focus of ancient Jewish worship was the Ark of the Covenant (aron habrit) crowned by two golden cherubs in carved winged human forms.
Moses was also commanded to make a bronze serpent in order to bring healing to the people. None of these things were considered idols and none violated the ten commandments. This is because they were venerated as object that turned the people toward God and His commandments and not as something worsipped in the place of God.
Posted by: Provoslavni at February 23, 2006 6:12 PM
RBLA: "It may not be a coincidence that the same state, Minnesota, which has welcomed large numbers of Hmong refugees like the one who killed those six hunters also seeks to appease its burgeoning Muslim population."
FWIW, the state of Minnesota (especially the St Paul/Minneapolis, i.e.Twin Cities area), is also identified, from an historical, immigrationist standpoint, with Sweden. Frankly the European Swedes don't appear to be mounting a very strong defense vis a vis the Islamic invasion either. Make of that what one will I suppose.
Posted by: Caroline at February 23, 2006 7:02 PM
Caroline
This thread could be related to the previous thread re Finland. There are many Finnish immigrants in the Minnesota/Michigan area. http://www.finlandia.edu/
Posted by: zhu97 at February 25, 2006 7:55 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)